EDITORIAL POLICIES

The goal of IJSTAR is to choose the best scientific and practice-related publications in multidiscipline  through peer review. This can only be accomplished via an exhaustive, impartial, and fair peer review and publication process inside the IJSTAR. This procedure entails many ethical choices and standards in every area. The confidence of readers, writers, researchers, reviewers, editors, health professionals, research participants, funding organizations, and public health policy administrators is what makes IJSTAR reputable. By outlining IJSTAR policies as clearly as possible to guarantee the ethical treatment of all parties in the publication process, this confidence is strengthened.

Peer Review

The publication process and the dissemination of research, policy, and analytical evaluations depend heavily on peer review. Peer reviewers are specialists selected by editors to offer written evaluations of the merits and demerits of published research, with the goal of enhancing research reporting and determining the best and most relevant content for the journal. The IJSTAR requires peer reviewers to fulfill basic requirements related to their training, publishing history, original research experience, and critical evaluation of prior publications. Peer reviewers should be chosen for their objectivity and general knowledge, and they should be specialists in the scientific inquiry, policy, or analytical topic covered in the publications they review.

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review should be as follows:

  • The reviewer ought to have noted and discussed the study’s design and methodology’s main advantages and disadvantages.
  • Regarding the quality of the author’s interpretation of the data, the reviewer ought to provide accurate and helpful feedback, taking into account the limits of the data.
  • The reviewer’s comments should focus on the manuscript’s primary strengths and flaws as a written communication, without regard to the study’s design, methodology, findings, or interpretation.
  • The reviewer ought to address any ethical issues brought up by the study or any proof that the rules of scientific conduct were not upheld.
  • The reviewer ought to offer the author helpful recommendations on how to make the manuscript better.
  • Reviewers should assess submissions based on their scientific, policy, or analytical merits as well as the validity of their conclusions, without regard to their own opinions.
  • The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

A manuscript that has been submitted is a privileged communication, and reviewers are required to keep it private. It must not be saved or duplicated. Additionally, reviewers are not permitted to distribute the manuscript to any other peers without the editor’s express consent. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from using the data, arguments, or interpretations for any professional or personal purpose before publication (apart from those directly involved in peer review), unless they are writing an editorial or commentary to go along with the article or have the express permission of the authors.

Reviewed papers usually receive careful scrutiny by 2 reviewers and additional assessment by the responsible editors. Initial screening results in rejection of the majority of manuscripts within 2 weeks of submission. For those papers that are selected for review, the time to first decision is about 3 months. Overall time from submission to acceptance, which includes revisions by the authors, is about 6 months.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

If IJSTAR’s Editor has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following items:

  • Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their research;
  • Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary;
  • Providing all required information within established deadlines;
  • Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal;
  • Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review;
  • Reporting possible research misconducts;
  • Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons;
  • Treating the manuscript as a confidential document;
  • Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript;
  • Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors;
  • Not identifying themselves to authors;
  • Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer;
  • Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original research;
  • Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge;
  • Writing a review report in English only;
  • Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

What should be checked while reviewing a manuscript?

  • Novelty;
  • Originality;
  • Scientific reliability;
  • A valuable contribution to science;
  • Adding new aspects to the existed field of study;
  • Ethical aspects;
  • Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines;
  • References provided to substantiate the content;
  • Grammar, punctuation, and spelling;
  • Scientific misconduct.